>CIN: Of course. How can one possibly amputate part of the genitalia without>a subsequent loss of sexual feelings?

Speaking from personal experience, I am circucised and I still have an active
libido. If amputation of the foreskin is so terrible, men who haven't had
theirs removed must be unable to bear the intensity of the feelings!

Seriously, though, I was under the impression that sci.anthropology was a
science newsgroup. That would make it the wrong newsgroup by all logic to
push moral beliefs.

Secondly, since you are pushing moral beliefs your run the risk that your
arguements, while valid under your own belief system, may not be valid under
those of others. For example, the article in question is against male
circumcision (which it degradingly calls "male genital mutilation"). The
arguements used against it are not valid to me, as I, an observant Jew, hold
by a code which requires male circumcision. Since I hold that the code I
believe in is divinely recieved, the ravings of a small band of lunatics are
without question wrong as to the question of male circumcision. As there is no
logical way that opponents of male circumcision can hope to argue with me so
far as religion is concerned, they attempt to circumvent the difficulty by
ignoring it. Unfortunately for them the religious factor makes it impossible
to convince me. (Note: female circumcision is a different question, so don't
flame me under the false assumpution that I am in favor of it.)

Thirdly, the arguements given against male circumcision are unconvincing to say
the least. By bringing up a case where a circumcision ended in disaster, the
orginal article hopes to convince others that male circumcision must end in
disaster. That is comparable to saying that if someone gets into an auto
accident while riding in a car then making someone ride in a car is
inherently wrong, all the while ignoring that the vast majority of people who
get into a car walk out of the car without incident. (Bug me about traffic
statistics later.) For the record, I heard only of one other incident in which
something went wrong with a male circumcision (accidental contraction of
syphillis), which happened at least 150 years ago and was prevented by
application of contemporary knowledge of how to avoid spreading germs. Not
even enough things going wrong that you can count them on one hand doesn't
make a case, especially considering that millions of men are circumcised
without anything going wrong during or after the circumcision.